February 17, 2008

The Affirmative Action Candidate

As regular reader(s) of this humble “weblog” well know, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” haven’t been writing up a storm of late. In fact, you can count all our recent “posts” on no fingers. Accordingly, our audience is likely as large as a concert devoted to a 13-year-old playing Pierre Boulez sonatas with his armpit. (And, yes, those Pierre Boulez gags aren’t exactly aiding our efforts to reach more readers.)

Still, every once in a while, we become so fed up with the news cycle that we simply must break our collective silence. Campaign season is upon us, of course, and it brings with it all sorts of irritants.

Allow us to elaborate. There’s a fellow named Barack Obama (D-Bromides). As it turns out, he’s running for president of the United States, though he’s only served in the US Senate for one measly term. Even so, the media have lavished him with attention and warmth, compelling numerous mindless people to plump for him—instead of more experienced Democrats, such as Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd.

Thus Sen. Obama is content to head out on the campaign trail and speak to massive throngs in nothing but abject platitudes. Sen. Obama, we learn, supports “hope.” He is, we learn, also keen on “bi-partisanship,” which appears to be a code word for “support for paleo-liberalism.” For some reason, everyone is eating this stuff up.

Oh, and one more detail: Sen. Obama is black.

So what’s going on here? Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Pants Suit) would love to know. Whilst the media treat Sen. Obama with the kiddest of kid gloves, they assail Sen. Clinton with untoward ferocity. Every night, it seems, the talking heads fawn over Sen. Obama; every night, it seems, Chris Matthews channels Andy Capp in order to discuss Hillary.

And Sen. Clinton ain’t happy about it. Hillary and her supporters—including her notably randy husband—are up in arms about the stark differences in media coverage.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Look, Hillary, you get what you deserve.

After all, Sen. Clinton and her minions support what is euphemistically called “affirmative action” (a.k.a. preferential treatment). According to those of Sen. Clinton’s political persuasion, the United States should chuck its passé concern for the equal treatment of people in favor of a pernicious social gerrymandering. Members of so-called underrepresented minority groups (read: Unsuccessful minority groups) and women (ditto) warrant an artificial boost.

So, Sen. Obama is receiving that unfair boost. The media aren’t treating the election as a level playing field; rather, they’re favoring the black liberal.

Sen. Clinton, this is affirmative action in practice. It’s the unfairness you’ve always desired. Why don’t you love it? Why do you suddenly clamor for equal treatment?

Posted at February 17, 2008 12:01 AM | TrackBack